Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Howard SchultzEND QUOTE

"a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas." makes me feel that he wants all gun owners out, not just open carry

"a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life" I am safer when I carry

"we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted" again i feel unwelcome even as a concealer

"First, this is a request and not an outright ban" lazy - don't ask baristas to enforce, but comply with local laws about notices. reasoning: if in TX i do not see a sign on the door, the required one, i would not even think my gun was unwelcome, and if the baristas also say nothing i will have NO IDEA this blog post existed and i am against the companies wishes. Either go through the work of putting up signs - and the cops can enforce if desired not the baristas, or continue to comply with local laws like most businesses do day to day. you are doing nothing different than most stores do day to day. until this blog post.

"For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable." See above points about lack of legally required signs means most people will have no idea that the store is anti-carry and too lazy to do the legal work.

"The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers." personal aside this annoys me, how many people see cops carrying all the time? guns are not scary and time we brought gun education back into schools.

On February 13,
2013, the NRA sent a letter to members of the U.S. Congress
concerning the White House proposals to require background checks for
all firearms purchases.

The letter lays
out facts that every concerned citizen needs to know -- just the facts,
no fluff, no hyperbole, just simple, straight forward facts.

To view a copy
of the letter from the NRA-ILA’s Executive Director Chris Cox to the
U.S. Congress regarding so-called “universal background checks” click here.

THESE ARE THE FACTS — READ THEM — LEARN THEM — SHARE THEM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TALKING POINTS

NRA and NICSThe National
Rifle Association supported the establishment of the National Criminal
Instant Background Check System (NICS) [1], and we support it to this
day. At its creation, we advocated that NICS checks be accurate; fair;
and truly instant. The reason for this is that 99% of those who go
through NICS checks are law-abiding citizens, who are simply trying to
exercise their fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Dealers
Since 1986,
those engaged in the business of selling firearms for livelihood and
profit have been required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). All
retail sales of firearms currently require a NICS check, no matter
where they occur.

Private Sales
Regarding the
issue of private firearms sales, it is important to note that since
1968, it has been a federal felony for any private person to sell,
trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person he either knows or
reasonably should know is not legally allowed to purchase or possess a
firearm.

Mental Health Records and NICS
According to a
recent General Accounting Office study, as of 2011 23 states and the
District of Columbia submitted less than 100 mental health records to
NICS; 17 states submitted less than ten mental health records to NICS;
and four states submitted no mental health records to NICS.[2]

Gun Shows
A common
misrepresentation is that criminals obtain firearms through sales at gun
shows.

A 1997 Bureau of
Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or
possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent
acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or
family.”
Only 1.7 percent
obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or
flea market.[3]

Prosecutions
In 2010, the FBI
denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616. But only 62 of
these cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a
conviction.[4]

“Universal Background Checks”
While the term
“universal background checks” may sound reasonable on its face, the
details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite
different. A mandate for truly “universal” background checks would
require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a
firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the
federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private
firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have
known each other all of their lives.

According to a
January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National
Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of “universal background checks”
depends on requiring gun registration.[5] In other words, the only way
that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to
mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a
requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.

Sunday, February 10, 2013

I ran across this article on WaPo. I think a reasonable point is made here by Sen. Nancy Jacobs in opposition to State's Attorney Scott Shellenberger. There is a fine line between regulation and restriction. When you are dealing with a right, you need to take into account how the right you are trying to "regulate" can "restrict" other rights. Restricting the right to yell fire in a theater makes sense, restricting the right to peacably assemble to enjoy entertainment does not. Restricting the rights to of violent criminals, those deemed mentally unfit and those who would supply the prior two classes with firearms (straw purchasers) makes sense. Restricting those who lawfully purchase and own firearms for defense of all types (self-defense and tyranny included), hunting, competition and target shooting does not. Perform your background check, keep the databases up to date and let people be.

“We all agree that the First Amendment right, the freedom of speech, is not absolute,” Shellenberger said. “We all agree that you cannot walk into a crowded theater and yell fire. So if we can agree that the First Amendment freedom . . . of speech has reasonable limitations we should be able to find a place where the Second Amendment has reasonable limitations.”

Sen. Nancy Jacobs (R-Harford), the committee’s most outspoken opponent of O’Malley’s plan, said the comparison to gun ownership didn’t work.

“We don’t prevent people from going to the movies in the off chance that they might yell fire,” Jacobs said.

NRA: Anti-gun lawmakers are proposing mandatory liability insurance for firearm owners to exercise a fundamental, constitutional right. The NRA opposes mandatory liability insurance for gun owners because it is economically discriminatory and will penalize law-abiding gun owners. You don't have to carry insurance to exercise any other constitutional right!
Lawmakers propose liability insurance for U.S. gun owners
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/06/us-usa-guns-insurance-idUSBRE91516920130206

If ‘Assault Weapons’ Are Bad…Why Does DHS Want to Buy 7,000 of Them for ‘Personal Defense’?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad-why-does-the-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share%20Buttons

As Prohibition-era America showed, banning a highly in-demand substance
increases the violence surrounding that substance. When legal methods
cannot be used to settle contract and other disputes, extra-legal
methods (i.e., the point of a gun) will be used. Moreover, unsavory
characters will tend to traffic the prohibited substances, further
escalating violent business practices. These new businessmen also
facilitate the illegal gun trade, brazenly ignoring assault weapons bans
and other cosmetic limits on gun ownership. Those guns then flood the
black market, giving easy access to would-be criminals and mass
shooters. A 2001 Justice Department study
found that 20 percent of prison inmates received their guns from a drug
dealer or off the street. Comparatively, only 0.7 percent of the
weapons were obtained at gun shows. Which "loophole" should we be
focusing on closing?

MILLER: GOP senators blocked from bringing guns to hearing - Washington Times: Last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, found a loophole in the “assault weapon” ban in Washington to bring 10 rifles to her hearing as a prop intended to show that these same rifles should be prohibited on a national level. The Washington Metropolitan Police Department and Philadelphia Police Department brought the illicit weapons to the press conference, aided by the U.S. Capitol Police and the Senate Sergeant at Arms.

In contrast, the Republicans wanted to bring guns that are “not covered by any ban but routinely used for self protection and sporting purposes.”

Gun owner Stephen King adds voice to gun-control debatehttp://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2013/01/25/stephen-king-guns/1864335/
Hogwash!
See article on AK being great home defense
what if there are multiple intruders? are 3 extra bullets that scary?

Can Taxes Really Help Stop Violence? http://www.learnvest.com/2013/01/can-taxes-really-help-stop-violence-123/ via @LearnVest
"But a study conducted by the Department of Justice showed that the 1994 assault weapons ban failed to reduce the number of victims per gun murder incident, and local and state handgun bans have also been ineffective. So what would work better?
Taxing guns and treating gun violence like a public health issue, according to three Harvard University public-health researchers."
"“In effect, the attitude from automobile manufacturers was, ‘Cars don’t kill people, people kill people.’” he says. “From a public health perspective, we feel it’s most valuable to ask, ‘What caused the injury?’ And the truth was that people were being lacerated by non-safety glass or the engine would go into the passenger compartment; the cars themselves were not as safe as they could be.”
Of course, says Dr. Hemenway, it was a huge fight with car manufacturers to get safety glass, seatbelts and airbags—as well as improve the conditions of the roads by adding more lights and speed bumps. “And while drivers aren’t any better 60 years later, by improving the environment of cars and roads, fatalities per mile driven have fallen over 90%,” he notes.
The overall safety of guns could be improved in a similar manner. Here’s how:
-Keep Guns From Accidentally Firing. At an American Public Health Association conference a few years ago, a concealed weapon fell to the ground, went off and shot two women, says Dr. Hemenway. One tweak gun manufacturers could make would be to guarantee that guns can’t fire if they’re dropped.
-Ensure That Guns Are Unloaded When Magazines Are Removed. If no bullets are left in the chamber when magazines are removed, it could prevent deaths tied to kids who play with guns that they think are unloaded.
-Design Childproof Guns. Accidental poisonings–another public-health issue–were cut by 40%, thanks to child-safety medicine bottles. Similarly, guns could be childproofed by necessitating a more complex combination of pressure put on the handle when the trigger is pulled, says Dr. Hemenway."
" Empower the ATF. The bureau hasn’t had a permanent director for the last six years, has had very little funding and it isn’t allowed to conduct its own sting operations to identify dealers who sell to straw purchasers. Reports have suggested that many of the guns used in crimes are acquired via straw purchasers. By enabling the ATF to conduct sting operations, we could reduce the number of guns that are easily getting into the hands of criminals.
Improve Licensing and Registration. In the same way that cars are licensed and registered to owners, better licensing and registration efforts would help make sure that guns are being used responsibly by purchasers–and not being sold off to criminals, suggests Dr. Hemenway.
Train Gun Dealership Employees. Such employees should be trained to help identify straw purchasers and suicidal individuals. By asking the right types of questions, and identifying the necessary authorities, dealership employees could help save lives and prevent guns from getting resold to criminals."
I STRONGLY DISAGREE with the registration
not so sure about the ATF thing. i want straw purchases prosecuted but don't' want another fast and furious
but i kinda like the other points

This facebook meme was going around, i want to work on disputing a number of the points
TBD
"So, here's my two cents (which will end up being closer to $1.50 I'm sure) and I'm sure I will regret posting this later, due to the "friends" I will lose while exercising my First Amendment, but here goes."
"Instead of posting a meme with a picture and a falsely attributed quote or a made up statistic, I've spent my time researching the gun violence/gun control debate. And I'd like to talk about some of the pervasive themes I've seen lately."
"First off, Hitler did not say "In order to conquer a country, you must first disarm its citizens." In fact, Hitler made it his position to enable guns to be obtained more easily. http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/disarm.asp
Secondly, the presidents, and I mean ALL of them, and their families, receive death threats on a daily basis. President Obama did not enact the regulations that REQUIRE Secret Service protection for him and his family. If you believe your children are as much of a target as the president's children, then you have a self inflated idea of your position in this world. http://www.secretservice.gov/protection.shtml
Thirdly, there is NO law or bill being considered that would allow anyone to come marching into your home to take your legally obtained and legally owned firearms. There are possible laws that are being explored that would require more responsibility on the part of the gun owner or person purchasing a gun (i.e. pass a background check even if buying a gun from a gun show dealer). If you buy a car from a dealer it must be registered (a record of the transfer is documented). If you buy a car from a private citizen, it must be registered. If you buy a gun from a dealer, there is a record of that sale and it is registered. So how is it illogical to require the same for private sales of firearms?
Fourth, there are not more people being killed with baseball bats than guns. If you disagree with that because you saw a picture stating otherwise on the internet, then I would like to offer you the chance to buy some oceanfront property in Arizona and I'll throw in the Brooklyn Bridge for free. There is no magical solution for solving the problem of gun violence. THAT is what we need to solve. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp
We don't ban cars that are used in DUI related deaths, but we do enact regulations regarding blood alcohol limits, prosecute people who enable a drunk driver to operate a vehicle after serving them, promote a DUI campaign raising awareness and educating drivers on the dangers of driving while intoxicated. All of which has reduced DUI related fatalities by over 40% in a decade. http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-statistics
The media is not hiding other gun related stories because they want to sensationalize the problem, they are simply unable to cover every gun death story because there would be an average of 80 of them each day. So they concentrate (unfortunately) on the massacres which I think we can all agree, happen all too often.
I find the fact that more children are killed in the US by guns than in the entire Middle East region, very disturbing.
I find it disturbing that the NRA blames the rise in violent shootings on video games and then comes out with its own shooting video game (categorized for children as young as 4 years of age) less than a month after Newtown.
I find it disturbing that other countries spend in excess of twice as much as the US on violent video games and have a small fraction of the amount of gun related deaths/injuries.
I find it disturbing that instead of looking for a solution to a problem like Newtown, there are people wasting their time and energy by trying to turn it into a conspiracy theory.
I find it disturbing that guns are the third largest killer of children ages 5-14 in the US.
I find it disturbing that a child in America is 12 times more likely to be killed with a gun than the rest of the "developed" world.
I find it disturbing that there are more guns privately owned in America than the next SEVENTEEN countries combined.
I find it disturbing that all of these statistics are not discussed but fake statistics about a baseball bat death rate are plastered everywhere.
I find it disturbing that some people believe that the ONLY answer to this problem is more guns."
ME:
So it's not relevant that the crime rate is going down?
http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/
"Dan Gross, head of the Brady Campaign used the number of daily gun murders as proof that “gun violence rates are not” going down. But the rate of gun murder is at its lowest point since at least 1981: 3.6 per 100,000 people in 2010. The high point was 7 in 1993. However, non-fatal gun injuries from assaults increased last year for the third straight year, and that rate is the highest since 2008.
Federal data also show violent crimes committed with guns — including murders, aggravated assaults and robberies — have declined for three straight years.
Rep. Donna Edwards said that “since Columbine, there have been 181 of these school shootings.” That’s an inflated figure. She used a list of “major school shootings” supplied by the Brady Campaign that included incidents that were neither shootings nor at schools. By our count, the list shows 130 school shootings since Columbine that resulted in at least one student or school official being killed or injured — still unacceptably high, but about a quarter fewer than claimed."
Also a lot more people are being murdered with non guns, so perhaps it's not the tool it's people (poverty, glorified violence, mental illness stigame, many other things?)
http://www.infowars.com/statistics-prove-more-guns-less-crime/
"Amongst the “top ten killers” in the United States, homicide by firearms is at the bottom of the list, according to figures from the CDC and the FBI."
"Despite the fact that it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to obtain a gun through legal channels in Britain, the rate of violent crime in the UK is higher per capita than the US and the highest in the world amongst “rich” countries aside from Australia, which also instituted a draconian gun ban in the 1990′s."
MEME:
Banning all firearms is NOT the answer, which is exactly why it's not being proposed. This country has enacted laws that didn't work before, so they've been revised, repealed, reformed, etc. It's ludicrous to think that as a society, we evolve, but the laws governing us cannot? The NRA states that the assault weapons ban didn't work the first time. Well, you know what they say, "If at first you don't succeed, f*%k it."."
ME:
"If armed guards are the only answer to ending school shootings, then explain the VT shooting. Virginia Tech had an entire police department complete with a SWAT unit. Explain Columbine, which had an armed officer on staff. When discussing an end to gun violence in schools, there should be NOTHING left off of the table."
I agree armed guards are not the only, or a good answer.
Guards and police are there to enforce laws, not protect anyone.
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." multiple court cases here http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
In fact VT "Our mission
The Virginia Tech Police Department strives to enhance the safety and quality of life for students, faculty, staff and visitors through effective law enforcement and proactive crime prevention in partnership with the university community." http://www.police.vt.edu/VTPD_v2.1/home.html
MEME:
"Ronald Reagan, a huge gun proponent and signor of the Brady Bill, wrote to Congress in 1994 asking them to propose legislation limiting or stopping altogether the manufacture of guns classified as assault weapon. And anyone saying "assault weapon" is a made up term should remember that every word in every language is, in fact, made up."
"And yes, criminals don't typically obey laws, but we still have them. Can you use that logic to say there should be none at all? No."
ME:
I am not, and most of my friends are NOT saying there should be no laws, rather there are MANY gun laws at the federal, state, and in come cases lower levels that are NOT being enforced (such as lying on gun buying form) and should be. Let's use the laws we have before we say they do not work. Or lets tweak the ones that have failed so they might work next time if we find they have a loophole instead of adding MORE bureaucracy.
http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/local/warren/gun-laws-not-being-enforced#.UQE6qmecWSo
"At Target World, a Sharonville gun shop and shooting range, assistant manager Jeff Mann told 2 News there were already more than 3,000 gun laws on the books, including those prohibiting those termed as "mentally unstable" by the courts to to purchase guns.
"Those gunlaws are not enforced as aggressively as they should be," said Mann."
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500159_162-555151.html
"The "enforce the laws" camp got a boost last week from a study by the Americans for Gun Safety Foundation that documents the embarrassing extent to which federal gun laws are not, in fact, enforced. Of the 22 major federal gun statutes, 20 are almost completely ignored. And they happen to be the laws intended to combat the black-market for firearms."
MEME:
"Let me be clear, I am NOT anti gun. I have nothing against guns or responsible gun owners. I served proudly in the military, I worked in armed security, I've hunted, and enjoy target shooting since I was a kid. And I'm sure most gun enthusiasts are the same way. However, this issue should be discussed logically and rationally, and all I see are comments and pictures that are anything but rational and for the most part, are just viral, inflammatory, unresearched, vitriol.
The president enacted 23 executive actions today, of which only 2 have anything to do with limiting the availability of a category of gun or a magazine capacity. The remaining 21 deal with aspects regarding background checks, school safety and mental health system requirements and deficiencies. Will it be a perfect solution? No. Will it help? We'll see. Is it better than doing nothing? Definitely. If we keep using the statement, "It's too soon to talk about it." after each tragedy, pretty soon, we'll never talk about it.
OK, so maybe it ended up closer to $2.00 instead of 2 cents. So sue me."

The stale claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks - The Washington Post: The White House says the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago. This study is based on data collected from a survey in 1994, just the Brady law requirements for background checks was coming into effect. (In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, while Brady law went into effect in early 1994.) In other words, this is a really old figure.

The data is available for researchers to explore at the Interuniversity consortium on political and social research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan. Digging deeper, we find that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus 6 percentage points.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Joe D commentedSorry,
this author makes a few good points, but fails at so many others.
"...qualifying the right by couching it in terms of a military
organization". They they go on to argue that it's a moot argument, since
the federal military obviously trumps that. What a load of crap.

The
"militia", at the time, was all able-bodied adult (white) men. We don't
discriminate (much) based on gender or skin color anymore, so in
today's world that would be all adult citizens. When the state felt it
needed an armed force, it called up this militia to fight. It has
absolutely nothing to do with a standing army.

The
author then goes on to argue for a modern-day "militia". Personally, I
think this is a great idea. But the last time this was attempted (the
National Guard), the federal government nationalized it, sending it
overseas to fight. This defeated the entire purpose.

Then
the author *really* lost me when they argued the modern militia would
be overseen by full-time people, who would report to the execute branch
of the federal government. I'm sorry, but you are a farking moron.
Having the only armed bodies we have all reporting to the same branch of
the federal government is stupid, wasteful, and dangerous.

Red Leaf Tea You are talking about times when having a weapon was necessary to survive and fight against foreign enemy. When was the last time England tried to invade your family? Want to shoot people, go to Irak. The problem is that every idiot has a right to have a gun, and than you are all surprised when children get killed at schools. How many parents of the children had guns? Did it really helped them to protect the family?!
--
Nicole Schwartz every idiot does not have the right, every gun purchase requires a background check.
--
Other The ignorance is astounding. The worst mistake a business can make is voicing political opinions with little knowledge. This gun owning, military wife is starting to rethink future purchases.
--
Other And it's Iraq not Irak.
--
Red Leaf Tea I don't have a need to own a gun. I have faith that our military will protect us. Don't you?
--
Other Our military is only a small percentage of of our population. As the wife of a member of our military I do feel safe, but no I do not believe it's feasible to say we're all going to be safe if something were to happen. As well, it's not the job of the military to police the streets, it's to protect our country. When it comes down to it, we're all responsible for protecting ourselves. I know my house will be safe.
--
Nicole Schwartz A few items: Criminals by definition do not follow laws. New and old laws will not stop them. The courts have ruled that cops are available for law enforcement, not protection of people, there are not enough of them. Soldiers are also not for protection of self. they protect the country from other countries or threats or help after disasters. I have the right to life and liberty and can protect myself from others who wish to take that away. I choose a gun as I am not physically fit and it makes me equal to most threats against me. I hope NEVER to have to use my guns, but I have them. Also note: laws that prohibit things rarely work, see: prohibition, war on drugs, gun free zones. Gun free zones are victim zones. The movie theater was gun free, the school was gun free. People are now printing magazines at home that hold greater than 10 bullets, greater than 30. Laws may be passed to stop this, but see point 1 - criminals don't follow laws, so then criminals will have greater firepower and I will not because I follow the laws. Have you not seen the recent news stories about young children who protected their home from people trying to break in? It is the intent of the person, not the tool. Also note England with it's gun ban still has gun crime, violent crime, murder. Criminals have switched to explosive devices that are *more* deadly than mass shootings. would you prefer we get never gassed / bombed more often?
--
Red Leaf Tea I think we can all agree that there is no perfect solution to this issue. Neither banning guns for all nor allowing anyone to get a gun will fix this issue. There are laws trying to limit access to guns for some people, but clearly they don’t work.
I really don’t mind having responsible people own any kind of a weapon, but it’s the other kind that concerns me. There are parents that own a gun at home, and when their child has a very bad day at school, may decide to use it. It has happen. There are greedy people that will sell guns to anyone with money. The guy that shot his mother and bunch of school kids, after he killed himself, was official declared mentally incompetent. Unfortunately that has happened AFTER it was all done.
As a father of a new baby girl and never a victim of crime involving a weapon, my main concern is for my daughter, that I cannot protect 24/7. Perhaps I’m focusing more on this part of crime.
Yes, criminals will always find a way to get guns. But if banning guns all together will limit access for some from the irresponsible group, I don’t mind releasing the right to own a gun.
Is it a perfect solution- I’m not sure. I’m not even sure if it’s a good one.
What I love about this country is that each one of us can speak up their mind and there is always room for few more ideas. We may not agree on a solution, but if we argue, at least it means that we care and try to make it better for all of us. It’s much better than not caring at all, but then again, it’s just my opinion, which does not mean it’s a right one.
--
Other The problem with opinions is that everyone has that and if you aren't sure what you're saying it's best not to say a word. I also have a daughter, a school age daughter. My owning guns cannot protect her while she is not home, but I sleep a little easier at night knowing that if something were to happen to us I am fully capable of protecting her and my household when my husband is not home.
--
Red Leaf Tea I know what I think, and what I know, but as open minded person, at least I acknowledge the fact that I may not always be right.
--
Other Oh, I know I'm not always right. Would never say I was. Imperfections should be embraced.
--
Nicole Schwartz I wish prohibition worked and your belief that it would make it harder for not law abiding persons was true, but through enough examples in countries and history i believe it is not the case, so i refuse to give up more right than we already have, and lament the patriot act, warantless wiretapping and indefinite detention. i will not give an inch if i can help it as they do take a mile. There are plenty of laws, which you are correct didn't help (you said so yourself) so why add more that also won't help, why not find where the last law went wrong (legally no one deemed a danger to self, others, accused of violent acts or stalking or abuse of children may own a gun) are the reporting laws unclear? did mental professionals not know how to properly report? why not fix that law that exists so it works as intended and obviously didn't (let's get rid of social stigma around mental health, let's provide more money, make clear the inexpensive care that is available, i am sure there is more). also the man who shot the firefighter used a straw purchase as he was not legally allowed to own guns, the girl who sold it is only going to prison, why not also include her in the manslaughter charges? let's fix the straw purchase law too. Why did the shooter get so much air time on TV, why was he a celebrity? why do we glorify violence? why don't we all rise up against that and tell the media no more, would that not help discourage people seeking fame? why don't we teach better conflict resolution skills in school? why instead does so much come to violence like bullying? there is so much we can do across the board and the focus on the issue of only guns isn't going to help. let us certainly look at guns and improve the laws that failed. let us also look at mental health, violence acceptance, conflict resolution, poverty and other things. I would also like to note all recent gun crimes have occurred in states with the MOST gun laws, obviously those current laws didn't help and i believe though well intentioned more will also not help. we both have our opinions but i trust we both want criminals in jail, all persons safe from harm, and no accidental deaths for anyone, and protection of loved ones in whatever form (deterrents like laws and more). I also wish people could bring up points i have not heard before so i could research and learn more, but no one has, which tells me it is the same sad argument and few people are progressing in their argument which means both sides are losing. we need to progress and learn and make this a better place to live, but too many people are accepting the feel good things being done and not pushing for more thought and review.